DOCSLIB.ORG

Who Was Buried at Stonehenge?', Antiquity., 83 (319)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Who Was Buried at Stonehenge?', Antiquity., 83 (319) Durham Research Online Deposited in DRO: 24 June 2011 Version of attached le: Published Version Peer-review status of attached le: Peer-reviewed Citation for published item: Parker Pearson, M. and Chamberlain, A. and Jay, M. and Marshall, P. and Pollard, J. and Richards, C. and Thomas, J. and Tilley, C. and Welham, K. (2009) 'Who was buried at Stonehenge?', Antiquity., 83 (319). pp. 23-39. Further information on publisher's website: http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0003598X00098069 Publisher's copyright statement: Copyright c Antiquity Publications Ltd 2009 Use policy The full-text may be used and/or reproduced, and given to third parties in any format or medium, without prior permission or charge, for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-prot purposes provided that: • a full bibliographic reference is made to the original source • a link is made to the metadata record in DRO • the full-text is not changed in any way The full-text must not be sold in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders. Please consult the full DRO policy for further details. Durham University Library, Stockton Road, Durham DH1 3LY, United Kingdom Tel : +44 (0)191 334 3042 | Fax : +44 (0)191 334 2971 https://dro.dur.ac.uk Who was buried at Stonehenge? Mike Parker Pearson1, Andrew Chamberlain1,MandyJay2, Peter Marshall3, Josh Pollard4, Colin Richards5, Julian Thomas5, Chris Tilley6 & Kate Welham7 Research Stonehenge continues to surprise us. In this new study of the twentieth-century excavations, together with the precise radiocarbon dating that is now possible, the authors propose that the site started life in the early third millennium cal BC as a cremation cemetery within a circle of upright bluestones. Britain’s most famous monument may therefore have been founded as the burial place of a leading family, possibly from Wales. Keywords: Britain, Neolithic, Beaker, Stonehenge The human remains at Stonehenge Stonehenge is Britain’s largest cemetery of the third millennium cal BC and yet we know very little about who was buried there and when. Excavations across almost half of its area have yielded 52 cremation burials, many cremated fragments and over 40 fragments of unburnt human bone (Figures 1 and 2; McKinley 1995). The total number of individuals buried at Stonehenge has been estimated as 240, based on the assumption that many of the cremation deposits each contain the remains of two or three persons (Pitts 2001: 121). If single-individual cremation burials were the norm, a more conservative estimate might be 150 people buried at Stonehenge in the third millennium cal BC. During his work at Stonehenge between 1919 and 1926, William Hawley excavated cremations from the western half of the monument (mostly from the ditch and the Aubrey Holes; Figure 2). It seems that no museum was prepared to curate these remains, since the scientific value of cremated bone was not appreciated in Britain at the time. In 1935, William Young and R.S. Newall reburied an estimated 58 of the cremation deposits excavated from Stonehenge; packed into four sandbags and accompanied by an inscribed plaque, they were tipped into the previously excavated Aubrey Hole 7. A few cremated remains from later excavations at Stonehenge by Richard Atkinson have remained available for study, being 1 Department of Archaeology, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK (Email: m.parker-pearson@sheffield.ac.uk) 2 Department of Archaeology, University of Durham, Durham, UK 3 Chronologies, 25 Onslow Road, Sheffield S11 7AF, UK 4 Department of Archaeology & Anthropology, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK 5 School of Arts, Histories and Cultures, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK 6 Department of Anthropology, University College London, London, UK 7 School of Conservation Sciences, University of Bournemouth, Bournemouth, UK Received: 24 April 2008; Accepted: 22 June 2008; Revised: 27 June 2008 ANTIQUITY 83 (2009): 23–39 23 Who was buried at Stonehenge? Figure 1. The location of Stonehenge (see also Figure 9). curated in Salisbury & South Wiltshire Museum. Only three cremations have been subjected to osteological analysis (McKinley 1995: 456–8) and only one has had associated charcoal radiocarbon-dated, too imprecisely to be of use (C-602; 3798 −+ 275 BP; 2890–2220 cal BC [95% probability]). Previous researchers have assigned the cremation burials to the end of Stonehenge’s timber phase (Phase 2; see Table 1) and the beginning of its bluestone and sarsen phase (Phase 3), estimated as around the twenty-seventh to twenty-sixth centuries cal BC (Cleal et al. 1995: 154, 163). Some of the unburnt human bones from Hawley’s excavations have been lost (Pitts 2001: 116-8), but a number of these have also been kept safely in Salisbury & South Wiltshire Museum’s collections. The only prehistoric inhumation from Stonehenge, an arrow-pierced adult male known as the Stonehenge Archer, was buried within the ditch (Cutting 61; Evans 1984) and dates to the Beaker period (2340–2195 cal BC [95% probability]). In 2007 the Stonehenge Riverside Project and Beaker People Project jointly embarked upon a dating programme of these surviving remains to establish when Stonehenge was used as a burial space. With new techniques available for dating cremated human bone (Lanting et al. 2001) and improved methods of analysis for cremated bones 24 Mike Parker Pearson et al. Research Figure 2. Plan of Stonehenge, showing the Aubrey Holes (outer perimeter), the bluestones (both in black; the bluestones are the smaller stones) and the sarsens, with finds of human bone marked as black spots (from Cleal et al. 1995: Figure 250; copyright of English Heritage). (McKinley & Roberts 1993; Mays et al. 2002; Brickley & McKinley 2004) this is an opportune moment to study these neglected people. Furthermore, the contexts and dates of the cremations have led to an amendment of Stonehenge’s overall sequence of use. Cremations Of the 34 Aubrey Holes so far excavated, all but eight have contained cremated bones (Figure 2). The cremation burial within Aubrey Hole 32 is the one instance in which human remains are likely to be primary depositions within these pits. Hawley’s records of 25 Who was buried at Stonehenge? Table 1. The structural sequence at Stonehenge, comparing the conventional and proposed schemes. Existing scheme (Cleal et al. 1995) 3015–2935 cal BC Phase 1 Ditch, bank & poss. Aubrey Holes c. 2900–2400 cal BC Phase 2 Timber posts, cremation burials c. 2550–2400 cal BC Phase 3i Bluestone arc 2440–2100 cal BC Phase 3ii Sarsen trilithons & circle c. 2300–2000 cal BC Phase 3iii Features on west side of stone circle 2270–2020 cal BC Phase 3iv Bluestones re-arranged in central oval 2210–1930 cal BC Phase 3v Bluestones re-arranged in central horseshoe 2020–1740 cal BC Phase 3vi Z Holes 1630–1520 cal BC ”YHoles Revised scheme (this paper & Parker Pearson et al. 2007) 3015–2935 cal BC Stage 1 Bluestones in Aubrey Holes, henge ditch & bank, timber posts, cremation burials c. 2900–2600 cal BC Stage 2 Bluestones re-arranged in an arc, with timber passageway, timber post arc and large house/hall on south side, cremation burials 2580–2470 cal BC Stage 3 Sarsen circle & trilithons, banked & ditched avenue, timber posts, Station Stones, Heel Stone, Slaughter Stones (bluestones presumably re-arranged among sarsens), cremation burials 2450–2210 cal BC Stage 4 Large pit in centre of Stonehenge, features on west side of stone circle, ‘Stonehenge Archer’ burial 2270–2020 cal BC Stage 5 Bluestones re-arranged in central oval 2210–1930 cal BC Stage 6 Bluestones re-arranged in central horseshoe 2020–1740 cal BC Stage 7 Z Holes 1630–1520 cal BC Stage 8 Y Holes these pits are sketchy at best (Hawley 1921 and unpublished archive). Nonetheless, it is possible to gain some understanding of the stratigraphic positions of cremation deposits within at least some of the Aubrey Holes. Reviewing his descriptions and section drawings, it is possible to establish the positions of some of these deposits within the fills of the pits (see below). Samples from three cremation burials produced radiocarbon dates within the third millennium cal BC but at different periods within it (Table 2 and Figure 3). The earliest date comes from the cremated remains of an adult from Atkinson’s 1950 excavation of Aubrey Hole 32 (Figure 4, layer 4 [context 3008]; Cleal et al. 1995: 101), and dating to 3030–2880 cal BC (94% probability; OxA-18036 ; 4332 −+ 35 BP). The two other dated cremation deposits were excavated in 1954 by Atkinson from the fills of the ditch to the west of Stonehenge’s north-east entrance (within Cutting 41 [context 3893] and 42 [context 3898]). The earlier of these (from Cutting 41), of a young/mature adult, dates to 2920– 2870 cal BC (OxA-17957; 4271 −+ 29 BP). The later cremation deposit (from Cutting 42), that of an adult woman aged about 25 years, dates to 2570–2400 cal BC (OxA- 17958; 3961 −+ 29 BP), estimated as 2470–2300 cal BC (95% probability). This is likely 26 Mike Parker Pearson et al. Research Figure 3. New radiocarbon dates from Stonehenge. to be later than the construction of the sarsen circle (2580–2470 cal BC; 95% probability; Figure 5) and trilithons (2600–2400 cal BC; 95% probability; Figure 5; Parker Pearson et al. 2007). Inhumations and unburnt bones Most of Stonehenge’s surviving unburnt and disarticulated human bones are from unstratified or disturbed contexts. The aim of dating a selection of these was to establish whether any of them were contemporary with Stonehenge’s three principal stages of use within the third millennium cal BC. The recently dated skeleton of a decapitated man buried within the sarsen circle indicates that he met his fate in the post-Roman period (Pitts 2001: 300– 22; Pitts et al.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 6 Cook: Howe Mire, Inveresk | 143
    Proc Soc Antiq Scot, 134 (2004), 131–160 COOK: HOWE MIRE, INVERESK | 131 Howe Mire: excavations across the cropmark complex at Inveresk, Musselburgh, East Lothian Murray Cook* with contributions from A Heald, A Croom and C Wallace ABSTRACT Excavations across the complex of cropmarks at Inveresk, Musselburgh, East Lothian (NGR: NT 3540 7165 to NT 3475 7123), revealed a palimpsest of features ranging in date from the late Mesolithic to the Early Historic period. The bulk of the features uncovered were previously known from cropmark evidence and are connected with either the extensive field system associated with the Antonine Fort at Inveresk or the series of Roman marching camps to the south-west of the field system. The excavation has identified a scattering of prehistoric activity, as well as Roman settlement within the field system, together with dating evidence for one of the marching camps and structures reusing dressed Roman stone. INTRODUCTION reports have been included in the site archive. A brief summary of these excavations has been An archaeological watching brief was previously published (Cook 2002a). conducted in advance of the construction of This report deals solely with the excavated 5km of new sewer pipeline from Wallyford to area within the scheduled areas which com- Portobello (NT 3210 7303 to NT 3579 7184). prised a 6m wide trench approximately 670m The construction works were conducted by M J long (illus 1) (NT 3540 7165 to NT 3475 7123). Gleeson Group plc on behalf of Stirling Water. The trench was located immediately to the The route of the pipeline ran through a series south of the Edinburgh to Dunbar railway line of cropmarks to the south of Inveresk (illus (which at this point is in a cutting) and crossed 1; NMRS numbers NT 37 SE 50, NT 37 SW both Crookston and Carberry Roads, Inveresk, 186, NT 37 SW 33, NT37 SW 68 and NT 37 Musselburgh.
    [Show full text]
  • Concrete Prehistories: the Making of Megalithic Modernism 1901-1939
    Concrete Prehistories: The Making of Megalithic Modernism Abstract After water, concrete is the most consumed substance on earth. Every year enough cement is produced to manufacture around six billion cubic metres of concrete1. This paper investigates how concrete has been built into the construction of modern prehistories. We present an archaeology of concrete in the prehistoric landscapes of Stonehenge and Avebury, where concrete is a major component of megalithic sites restored between 1901 and 1964. We explore how concreting changed between 1901 and the Second World War, and the implications of this for constructions of prehistory. We discuss the role of concrete in debates surrounding restoration, analyze the semiotics of concrete equivalents for the megaliths, and investigate the significance of concreting to interpretations of prehistoric building. A technology that mixes ancient and modern, concrete helped build the modern archaeological imagination. Concrete is the substance of the modern –”Talking about concrete means talking about modernity” (Forty 2012:14). It is the material most closely associated with the origins and development of modern architecture, but in the modern era, concrete has also been widely deployed in the preservation and display of heritage. In fact its ubiquity means that concrete can justifiably claim to be the single most dominant substance of heritage conservation practice between 1900 and 1945. This paper investigates how concrete has been built into the construction of modern pasts, and in particular, modern prehistories. As the pre-eminent marker of modernity, concrete was used to separate ancient from modern, but efforts to preserve and display prehistoric megaliths saw concrete and megaliths become entangled.
    [Show full text]
  • Stonehenge OCR Spec B: History Around Us
    OCR HISTORY AROUND US Site Proposal Form Example from English Heritage The Criteria The study of the selected site must focus on the relationship between the site, other historical sources and the aspects listed in a) to n) below. It is therefore essential that centres choose a site that allows learners to use its physical features, together with other historical sources as appropriate, to understand all of the following: a) The reasons for the location of the site within its surroundings b) When and why people first created the site c) The ways in which the site has changed over time d) How the site has been used throughout its history e) The diversity of activities and people associated with the site f) The reasons for changes to the site and to the way it was used g) Significant times in the site’s past: peak activity, major developments, turning points h) The significance of specific features in the physical remains at the site i) The importance of the whole site either locally or nationally, as appropriate j) The typicality of the site based on a comparison with other similar sites k) What the site reveals about everyday life, attitudes and values in particular periods of history l) How the physical remains may prompt questions about the past and how historians frame these as valid historical enquiries m) How the physical remains can inform artistic reconstructions and other interpretations of the site n) The challenges and benefits of studying the historic environment 1 Copyright © OCR 2018 Site name: STONEHENGE Created by: ENGLISH HERITAGE LEARNING TEAM Please provide an explanation of how your site meets each of the following points and include the most appropriate visual images of your site.
    [Show full text]
  • Researching Stonehenge: Theories Past and Present
    Parker Pearson, M 2013 Researching Stonehenge: Theories Past and Present. Archaeology International, No. 16 (2012-2013): 72-83, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5334/ai.1601 ARTICLE Researching Stonehenge: Theories Past and Present Mike Parker Pearson* Over the years archaeologists connected with the Institute of Archaeology and UCL have made substantial contributions to the study of Stonehenge, the most enigmatic of all the prehistoric stone circles in Britain. Two of the early researchers were Petrie and Childe. More recently, colleagues in UCL’s Anthropology department – Barbara Bender and Chris Tilley – have also studied and written about the monument in its landscape. Mike Parker Pearson, who joined the Institute in 2012, has been leading a 10-year-long research programme on Stonehenge and, in this paper, he outlines the history and cur- rent state of research. Petrie and Childe on Stonehenge William Flinders Petrie (Fig. 1) worked on Stonehenge between 1874 and 1880, publishing the first accurate plan of the famous stones as a young man yet to start his career in Egypt. His numbering system of the monument’s many sarsens and blue- stones is still used to this day, and his slim book, Stonehenge: Plans, Descriptions, and Theories, sets out theories and observations that were innovative and insightful. Denied the opportunity of excavating Stonehenge, Petrie had relatively little to go on in terms of excavated evidence – the previous dig- gings had yielded few prehistoric finds other than antler picks – but he suggested that four theories could be considered indi- vidually or in combination for explaining Stonehenge’s purpose: sepulchral, religious, astronomical and monumental.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix E: Glossary of Terms
    AT THE ROAD’S EDGE: FINAL ARCHAEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATIONS OF THE WILSON FARM TENANCY SITE Appendix E: Glossary of Terms Glossary of Terms Artifact -Any object shaped or modified by man, or as a result of human activity. Archaeology -The study of the people of the past through the systematic recovery and analysis of the artifacts/material evidence they left behind. Archival Research – research conducted in places where public or historical records, charters, and documents are stored and preserved. Assemblage – Collection of persons or things: in archaeological contexts, the collection of artifacts from a particular site, from a stratigraphic level, or cultural component within the site, or a particular artifact class, such as lithics or ceramics. Census, U.S. – An official count of the nation’s population taken every 10 years, often including a collection of demographic information. Culture – A uniquely human system of behavioral patterns, beliefs, habits, and customs, used to interact with other people and with the environment, acquired by people through a nonbiological, uninherited, learned process. Datum – A point, line, or surface used as a reference, as in surveying. Diagnostic - An artifact that can clearly be dated and/or identified as to maker, date, place of origin, etc. Feature -Any soil disturbance or discoloration that reflects human activity. Also, an artifact too large to remove from a site; for example, house foundations, storage pits, etc. Flotation – The process of sifting soil samples through a fine screen while running a steady stream of water over the sample; residual materials such as tiny artifacts, seeds, and bones are separated out into light and heavy fractions for analysis.
    [Show full text]
  • Excavation Report
    Excavation Report Roman and Medieval Settlement remains along the Stow Longa to Tilbrook Anglia Water Pipeline Evaluation and Excavation Report January 2009 Client: Anglia Water OA East Report No: 990 OASIS No: oxfordar3-52223 NGR: TL 0800 6900 to 1100 7100 Roman, Saxon and medieval settlement remains along the Stow Longa to Tilbrook Anglian Water Pipeline Archaeological Evaluation and Excavation By Rob Atkins BSocSc Diparch With contributions by Barry Bishop MA; Peter Boardman BA; Paul Blinkhorn BTech; Alasdair Brooks BA MA DPhil; Steve Critchley BSc MSc; Nina Crummy BA FSA; Chris Fane MA MSc BABAO; Carole Fletcher HND BA AIFA; Rachel Fosberry HNC Cert Ed AEA; Alice Lyons BA MIFA and Paul Spoerry BTech PhD MIFA Editor: James Drummond-Murray BA PG Dip MIFA Illustrators: Crane Begg BSc, Gillian Greer BSc MAAIS and Caoimhín Ó Coileáin BA Plates: Andrew Corrigan BA Report Date: January 2009 © Oxford Archaeology East Page 1 of 90 Report Number 990 Report Number: 990 Site Name: Roman, Saxon and medieval settlement remains along the Stow Longa to Tilbrook Anglian Water Pipeline HER Event No: ECB 2780 (for test pits within Tilbrook and evaluation trenches from Tilbrook to Stow Longa. ECB 3507 was given for the two small excavation areas within Stow Longa village Date of Works: November 2007 to October 2008 Client Name: Anglian Water Client Ref: JUL059/07 Planning Ref: N/A Grid Ref: NGR TL 0800 6900 to 1100 7100 Site Code: MULSLT 07 Finance Code: MULSLT 07 Receiving Body: CCC Stores, Landbeach Accession No: Prepared by: Rob Atkins Position: Project Officer Date: December 2008 Checked by: James Drummond-Murray Position: Project Manager Date: December 2008 Signed: .................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • A303 Amesbury to Berwick Down
    A303 Amesbury to Berwick Down TR010025 6.3 Environmental Statement Appendices Volume 1 6 Appendix 6.1 Annex 8 Influences of the monuments and landscape of the Stonehenge part of the World Heritage Site on literature and popular culture APFP Regulation 5(2)(a) Planning Act 2008 Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulations 2009 October 2018 HIA Annex 8 – Influences of the monuments and landscape of the Stonehenge part of the WHS on literature and popular culture Introduction Stonehenge, Avebury and Associated Sites was inscribed on the UNESCO World Heritage Site List in 1986, one of the original list of seven sites in the UK to be put forward for inscription. The Statement of Outstanding Universal Value (OUV) was adopted in 2013. The Statement of OUV notes that ‘the monuments and landscape have had an unwavering influence on architects, artists, historians and archaeologists’ (UNESCO 2013). The 2015 Management Plan (Simmonds & Thomas 2015) identifies seven Attributes of OUV for the entirety of the WHS, of which the seventh is: ‘The influence of the remains of the Neolithic and Bronze Age funerary and ceremonial monuments and their landscape setting on architects, artists, historians, archaeologists and others.’ The landscape around Stonehenge, comprising natural and cultural elements, is not just a physical environment, but an abstraction that is perceived by the human observer. Such observers have included literary writers, poets and travel writers, who have used their sense of the place as they experienced it to inspire their creative writing. The unique strength of Stonehenge is that the monument is an instantly recognisable structure which resembles no other and onto which a range of fantasies can be projected (Hutton 2009, 45).
    [Show full text]
  • Phase 2 Stage 1 Eastchurch, Isle of Sheppey, Kent
    Wessex Archaeology Kingsborough Manor Phase 2 Stage 1 Eastchurch, Isle of Sheppey, Kent Assessment of Archaeological Excavation Results Ref: 57170.01 October 2005 KINGSBOROUGH MANOR PHASE 2 STAGE 1 EASTCHURCH, ISLE OF SHEPPEY, KENT Assessment of Archaeological Excavation Results Prepared on behalf of Jones Homes (Southern) Ltd 3 White Oak Square Swanley Kent BR8 7AG by Wessex Archaeology Portway House Old Sarum Park Salisbury SP4 6EB Report reference: 57170.01 October 2005 © Wessex Archaeology Limited 2005 all rights reserved Wessex Archaeology Limited is a Registered Charity No. 287786 KINGSBOROUGH MANOR PHASE 2 STAGE 1 EASTCHURCH, ISLE OF SHEPPEY, KENT SUMMARY Wessex Archaeology was commissioned by Jones Homes (Southern) Ltd to conduct archaeological excavations on land associated with Phase 2 Stage 1 of an ongoing, low- density housing development. The Phase 2 Stage 1 site was located north east of Kingsborough Farm, Eastchurch, Isle of Sheppey, Kent, and to the north west of Kingsborough Manor housing development Phase 1 (Fig. 1). Work was undertaken between July and September 2004 and was carried out as a condition of planning permission for the development granted by Swale District Council and pursuant to a specification issued by the Heritage Conservation Group of Kent County Council. This report provides a brief summary of the excavation results. The Site (NGR 597725 172394) comprised an area of land totalling approximately 15,759m² and was located to the north of Kingsborough Farm, 2km south-east of Minster and c. 1.25km to the north-west of the village of Eastchurch, Isle of Sheppey. It occupies an elevated position on the Isle of Sheppey, close to the north eastern edge of a ridge extending east-west along the island, with commanding views to the north and east over the Thames and the Essex coast.
    [Show full text]
  • Stonehenge and Ancient Astronomy Tonehenge Is One of the Most Impressive and Best Known Prehistoric Stone Monuments in the World
    Stonehenge and Ancient Astronomy tonehenge is one of the most impressive and best known prehistoric stone monuments in the world. Ever since antiquarians’ accounts began to bring the site to wider attention inS the 17th century, there has been endless speculation about its likely purpose and meaning, and a recurring theme has been its possible connections with astronomy and the skies. was it a Neolithic calendar? A solar temple? A lunar observatory? A calculating device for predicting eclipses? Or perhaps a combination of more than one of these? In recent years Stonehenge has become the very icon of ancient astronomy, featuring in nearly every discussion on the subject. And yet there are those who persist in believing that it actually had little or no connection with astronomy at all. A more informed picture has been obtained in recent years by combining evidence from archaeology and astronomy within the new interdiscipline of archaeoastronomy – the study of beliefs and practices concerning the sky in the past and the uses to which people’s knowledge of the skies were put. This leaflet attempts to summarize the evidence that the Stonehenge monument was constructed by communities with a clear interest in the sky above them. Photograph: Stonehenge in the snow. (Skyscan/english heritagE) This leaflet is one of a series produced by the Royal Astronomical Society (RAS). An electronic version is available for download at www.ras.org.uk. It has been written by the following members of the RAS Astronomical Heritage Committee: Clive Ruggles, Bill Burton, David Hughes, Andrew lawson and Derek McNally.
    [Show full text]
  • THE SINCEREST FORM of FLATTERY: an ANALYSIS of FULL-SCALE, EX SITU REPLICAS of WORLD HERITAGE SITES by REBECCA LEIGH MCMANUS
    THE SINCEREST FORM OF FLATTERY: AN ANALYSIS OF FULL-SCALE, EX SITU REPLICAS OF WORLD HERITAGE SITES by REBECCA LEIGH MCMANUS (Under the Direction of WAYDE BROWN) ABSTRACT Full-scale, ex situ replicas of UNESCO World Heritage Sites can be found in five countries and their constructions predate even the World Heritage Convention itself. Clearly, the desire of humans to copy the architectural wonders of the world has a long and enduring history. This thesis will attempt to answer three related questions. First, what is the intent behind constructing these replicas? Second, how do the public and cultural heritage professionals receive these replicas? And third, how do these replicas fit into the ongoing discussions on authenticity and interpretation in historic preservation? INDEX WORDS: Replica, Full-Scale, Ex Situ, World Heritage Convention, World Heritage Sites, Stonehenge, Maryhill Stonehenge, Foamhenge, Parthenon, Nashville Parthenon, Hallstatt Village, Luoyang Hallstatt, Great Sphinx at Giza, Chuzhou Sphinx, Duplitecture, Nara Document, Venice Charter, Postmodernism, Forgeries, Umberto Eco, Jean Baudrillard, Richard Handler, Albert Lessing, Biana Bosker. THE SINCEREST FORM OF FLATTERY: AN ANALYSIS OF FULL-SCALE, EX SITU REPLICAS OF WORLD HERITAGE SITES by REBECCA LEIGH MCMANUS BA, Emory University, 2013 A Thesis Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of The University of Georgia in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree MASTER OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION ATHENS, GEORGIA 2016 © 2016 Rebecca Leigh McManus All Rights Reserved THE SINCEREST FORM OF FLATTERY: AN ANALYSIS OF FULL-SCALE, EX SITU REPLICAS OF WORLD HERITAGE SITES by REBECCA LEIGH MCMANUS Major Professor: Wayde Brown Committee: Scott Nesbit Akela Reason Taylor Davis Electronic Version Approved: Suzanne Barbour Dean of the Graduate School The University of Georgia May 2016 iv DEDICATION I dedicate this work to my parents, who encouraged me to keep pursuing knowledge, and to Alex Green, Sophia Latz, and Lesa Miller for their support and editorial advice.
    [Show full text]
  • Durham Research Online
    Durham Research Online Deposited in DRO: 17 January 2014 Version of attached le: Accepted Version Peer-review status of attached le: Peer-reviewed Citation for published item: Towers, J. and Montgomery, J. and Evans, J. and Jay, M. and Pearson, M.P. (2010) 'An investigation of the origins of cattle and aurochs deposited in the Early Bronze Age barrows at Gayhurst and Irthlingborough.', Journal of archaeological science., 37 (3). pp. 508-515. Further information on publisher's website: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2009.10.012 Publisher's copyright statement: NOTICE: this is the author's version of a work that was accepted for publication in Journal of archaeological science. Changes resulting from the publishing process, such as peer review, editing, corrections, structural formatting, and other quality control mechanisms may not be reected in this document. Changes may have been made to this work since it was submitted for publication. A denitive version was subsequently published in Journal of archaeological science, 37,3, 20 2010, 10.1016/j.jas.2009.10.012 Additional information: Use policy The full-text may be used and/or reproduced, and given to third parties in any format or medium, without prior permission or charge, for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-prot purposes provided that: • a full bibliographic reference is made to the original source • a link is made to the metadata record in DRO • the full-text is not changed in any way The full-text must not be sold in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders.
    [Show full text]
  • Ever Increasing Circles: the Sacred Geographies of Stonehenge and Its Landscape
    Proceedings of the British Academy, 92, 167-202 Ever Increasing Circles: The Sacred Geographies of Stonehenge and its Landscape TIMOTHY DARVILL Introduction THE GREAT STONE CIRCLE standing on the rolling chalk downland of Salisbury Plain that we know today as Stonehenge, has, in the twentieth century AD, become a potent icon for the ancient world, and the focus of power struggles and contested authority in our own. Its reputation and stature as an archaeological monument are enormous, and sometimes almost threaten to overshadow both its physical proportions and our accumu- lated collective understanding of its construction and use. While considerable attention has recently been directed to the relevance, meaning and use of the site in the twentieth century AD (Chippindale 1983; 1986a; Chippindale et al. 1990; Bender 1992), the matter of its purpose, significance, and operation during Neolithic and Bronze Age times remains obscure. The late Professor Richard Atkinson was characteristically straightforward when he said that for questions about Stonehenge which begin with the word ‘why’: ‘there is one short, simple and perfectly correct answer: We do not know’ (1979, 168). Two of the most widely recognised and enduring interpretations of Stonehenge are, first, that it was a temple of some kind; and, second, that its orientation on the midsummer sunrise gave it some sort of astronomical role in the lives of its builders. Both interpre- tations, which are not mutually exclusive, have of course been taken to absurd lengths on occasion. During the eighteenth century, for example, William Stukeley became obses- sive about the role of the Druids at Stonehenge (Stukeley 1740).
    [Show full text]